Remember the Alamo
I come here not to bury the Spurs, but to praise them.
That's right, me, a Laker fan, has come here to write a postmortem of sorts and to pay homage to the Lakers' greatest rivals over the last 15 years: the San Antonio Spurs. Last night the Spurs were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs for the first time since 2000, and for the first time in Tim Duncan's storied career in the NBA. Some have said that the defeat marks the end of the Spurs' time as championship contenders, that their championship window has closed, that the sun has set on this most successful team of the post-Jordan NBA. The Spurs are a team that for many, myself included, conjured up extremely strong feelings of distaste, disgust and dismay for many, many years. But they conjured up a couple other things as well: fear, and then later, respect.
The Spurs, of course, are one of many Western Conference teams that has long considered themselves a big rival of the Lakers; but as I've said before, this did not make them unique. The Spurs joined the NBA after the ABA was merged with the league back in 1976, and thus began what was originally a rather one-side rivalry with the Lakers, the likes of which many Western teams are still embroiled in. This finally began to change in the 1990s, first with the arrival of now Hall of Fame center, David Robinson, and then later with the arrival of future Hall of Fame power forward, Tim Duncan. Following Robinson's arrival, the Spurs ascended to the elite ranks of the Western teams, a spot which was up for grabs following the end of the long dominance of the Lakers' Showtime Era.
Robinson led the Spurs to the Western Conference Finals in 1995, after an MVP season and 62 regular season wins; but along the way the Spurs ran into another upstart team that gave them some problems in the second round: the Nick Van Exel-Eddie Jones led Lake Show. In a series that few Laker fans who were watching at the time will ever forget, those young Lakers threw a real scare into the Spurs, pushing the Spurs to six games, including one of the all-time great Laker playoff finishes by Nick Van Exel in Game 5 with his three point shot to send the game to overtime and his three pointer to win it in the overtime period. Thus begun what has since become the NBA's greatest rivalry of the last two decades, with the two teams meeting six more times in the playoffs, and collecting seven championships between them.
But even though the history of the rivalry existed between these teams prior to that meeting in the playoffs in 1995, and even though the seeds for many truly epic battles were first planted in that year, this rivalry didn't really begin in earnest till the three biggest players were all added to these teams. Namely Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan. As any true Laker fan knows, Shaq and Kobe were both added together, in the summer of 1996, and this kicked off a run of success which lasted till 2004 when Shaq was traded and the Lakers were reformed into the team they've become today. The Spurs got their own final piece a year later when they drafted Tim Duncan following a disastrous 1996-97 season (which some have pointed to as the beginning of "tanking" in the NBA).
The Spurs soon learned, as the Lakers have known for a while, that when you're very successful for an extended period of time, you create a bunch of rivalries; and they started right away, eliminating the Phoenix Suns in the first round in Tim Duncan's rookie year. This became a recurring theme for the Men in Black, as San Antonio went on to meet, and beat, the Suns in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008, with Phoenix's one win in this rivalry coming in 2000 in a series that Duncan missed due to injury.
However, with the above paragraphs as evidence to the contrary, my aim here is not really to summarize the entire history of the Spurs or even their rivalry to the Lakers. I would assume even a casual fan of either team is well familiar with the battles these teams have had with each other and their seven title runs the teams have had between them. Instead I want to focus on what has happened with the Spurs since the last time they won, in 2007, and what their future looks like (and whether that championship window is indeed shut). Following their sweep over the LeBron-led Cavs in 2007, I for one thought entering last season that the Spurs would again be the team to beat, and we would most likely be looking at a Spurs over Celtics NBA Finals. The Spurs were just such a well-oiled machine and had so much championship pedigree, and so much talent and depth that I didn't see how they could lose.
Of course, as we all remember last year, it soon became apparent that the much-heralded bench of that 2007 championship Spurs team had suddenly gotten real old, real fast. Players like Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Kurt Thomas, Fabricio Oberto and Michael Finley all of a sudden looked a step (or two or three) slow, and as a result the Big Three of Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan were suddenly surrounded by a bunch of question marks, rather than a group of solid veteran role players. The Spurs still had a rather typical Spurs run through the regular season, finishing third in the West, and ultimately battled the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals; but their depth was further weakened with an ankle injury to Manu Ginobili, and just like that the Big Three became the Dynamic Duo, and the Lakers won in five.
Last summer I felt that the Spurs were not dead, or in serious trouble, and that odds were good they'd do some of their usual reloading, including a diamond plucked from the rough (which usually has meant foreign-born gems), and they'd be a serious threat once again. But oddly enough the Spurs did what I least expected them to do and basically did nothing. With the obvious problem of age and lack of athleticism staring the Spurs in the face they did not overhaul their roster, but instead did some minor tinkering and decided to give it a go with essentially the same flawed roster from the previous year. Only this year the injury problems worsened, as Ginobili went down multiple times and ultimately for the season, and Tim Duncan began to have knee problems; and as a result this time it was the Mavs who beat San Antonio in five, only they did it in the first round as opposed to the Conference Finals.
So what now for the Spurs? I'm seeing a lot of talk out there that they are washed up and finished, but honestly I feel the same way now that I did about them a year ago: they've still got a great trio of players in Duncan, Ginobili and Parker, and ultimately they just need to add a little bit to that core and they'll be very dangerous again in the fall. But who could they add?
This is promising to be one of the most interesting offseasons in recent memory, for two main reasons: 1) the economy stinks right now and so owners are losing money hand over fist as attendance threatens to plummet, so there is a good likelihood of another NBA lockout looming on the horizon; and 2) the summer of 2010 has long been seen as this golden conocopia, brimming with untold free agent riches, so it is assumed many teams will be unlikely to blow their 2010 salary cap on free agents this summer. As a result, while there are a number of fairly high profile free agents expected to be hitting the market this summer, it's unknown who, if any, of them will command more than MLE money. If this is true, it is likely that teams who are expected to compete for a title next season will probably try their hardest to acquire some of these players.
So what players are out there that could help the Spurs? Well there are a couple Lakers for starters: Lamar Odom and Trevor Ariza. It's currently up in the air and/or somewhat unknown as to what the Lakers might be willing to spend to retain these two players, but if San Antonio is able to work something sweeter than what the Lakers offer, who's to say what could happen? Odds are good that LA would outbid the Spurs to keep these players, but San Antonio doesn't necessarily need to get into a bidding war with LA to get some quality free agents. Other players out there who may be forced to sign for less than they'd prefer are the Pistons' trio of Allen Iverson, Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess, and any one of those three could offer some real help to the Spurs (assuming Greg Popovich could work his magic and get them to buy into the San Antonio system). Another possibility out there could be someone like Shawn Marion. That's the thing about this summer: it's one big question mark.
So that's why I said at the beginning that I didn't come to bury the Spurs, because I for one don't think that they're dead quite yet. I think we haven't seen the last of these guys, so you shouldn't be surprised if they pop up again next year in that old familiar role of "thorn in the Lakers' side". But I also said I came to praise the Spurs, and that's because if they are in fact dead, then they really are truly worthy of praise and respect. The run they've had over the last decade is among the best that any team in league history has ever had, probably ranking fourth behind Bill Russell's Celtics, Magic & Kareem's Lakers and Michael Jordan's Bulls. Many have accused the Spurs over the years of being boring, or too defensive-minded, or even dirty at times, but IMO they have proven to be one of the hardest-working and classiest teams in the league. They have never been a team to make excuses and have always accepted defeats and setbacks by taking the blame squarely on their shoulders, and often with a sly amount of humor to boot. If the Spurs are truly dead, then I for one am going to miss them. We Laker fans couldn't ask for a better rival.
2 recs |
48 comments
|
Comments
Great Article
There have been teams like Portland, Sacramento, Suns and Dallas who DO NOT deserve the respect that the Spurs deserve. This is the only team who in the last decade, just like the Lakers, have actually had reason to be proud of their accomplishments. Many of the teams mentioned above like to consider themselves good but the difference between a team that is good and great is truly measured in titles. If you are a Laker fan you hated the Spurs but not because of the nature of competing and hating the opposition but mostly because they are the only team who posed the only real threat to the Lakers. Unfortunately, their age is showing but they truly won with class. All those teams in the Western Conference have been stepping stones. Portland and the rest of those other teams are were just stepping stones but the true kings out West have proved it by winning titles. Period!
by PURPLE AND GOLD FOR LIFE on Apr 29, 2009 7:49 PM PDT reply actions
Great Post
I hate the spurs but I still respect them. They have some promise in Roger Mason but for the most part there getting up there in age. Just a question. Does Robert Horry still play for the Spurs? I haven’t seen him in a while and was just wondering.
4 wins down.... 12 more to go
Even I is know that and all I care about is Chris Paul.
Besides, Hornets are going to make the NBA finals, where they will summarily dispatch the Atlanta Hawks in six games
He is a bust?
He has seven rings so I wouldn’t classify him as a bust. The guy is the consummate role player who was great for three different franchises where he got rings. Also, the Spurs didn’t but him. His contract was up and they chose not to resign him.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Apr 29, 2009 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh yeah
Totally forgot about Horry. I hated the Spurs for getting him. Watching his 3 pointer vs. the Kings still gives me the chills.
by chrisbeomsuh on Apr 30, 2009 5:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Me too I watched that game live
4 wins down.... 12 more to go
by black mamba on Apr 30, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
The future of the Spurs...
As far as the future of the Spurs THEY ARE STILL DANGEROUS. Parker is still young and if they were not plagued by injuries to two of their three best players then we would not be having this conversation. They just need to combine the experience and veteran savvy with a group of young hungry players and they will be contenders again. Either way, this team is a team for the ages. I am sure that we have not seen the last of them and most importantly I think from my own personal opinion this organization has mastered the art of brining in unsung heroes. They know how to recruit!
by PURPLE AND GOLD FOR LIFE on Apr 29, 2009 7:57 PM PDT reply actions
hey man don't hate,
CP3 and i have one thing in common is that we carry really crappy teams on our shoulders.
by deron williams on Apr 30, 2009 5:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I never hated the Spurs
The only thing I hated was people pitting Duncan vis a vis Kobe as in “see how Duncan can carry a team by himself?” when it was always Duncan plus Parker plus Ginobili (just as it is for any championship team – yes, this includes potentially the Lakers and Kobe plus Gasol plus Bynum plus Odom or Lebron plus Z plus Varajeo plus Mo Williams plus Delonte West, or whatever team you root for).
I also did not appreciate the “bend the rules” defense of Bruce Bowen. Then again, I can’t blame the player, I should probably blame the refs for allowing it to go on.
But the Spurs themselves, they handled themselves well for the most part, and they lost with grace and won with humility.
Pop is a great coach. He applies his principles of basketball and stick with them, and never panics. As long as Pop decides to coach, the Spurs will be back.
I hate bruce bowen with a passion
the guy is classless and does not play by the rules. I read once that he tries to get people hurt by getting them to land awkwardly on his feet.
4 wins down.... 12 more to go
by black mamba on Apr 30, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I used to DESPISE AND HATE the Spurs
but then I realized how amazing they were and started to respect them. I never understood why people used to think KG was better than Duncan when Duncan was ahead by a mile. A great franchise with a coach that understands how to run an effective system (reminds me of the Patriots). Here is to hoping they will bounce back strong next year. I still enjoy watching the Lakers and the Spurs duke it out.
Congrats to the Spurs for the run that they were able to make. Like many on this site, they are the only team in the west that I have had the utmost respect for since they were the only one’s who were able to go back and fourth with us. I hope this is not the end of Duncan’s career and that his best days are behind him but I believe that it probably is. To this day I still can’t believe that the Horry three bounced out in 2003! Good luck Spurs and Spurs fans!
I never understood that
He’s like a PERFECT fit for their system. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20
by chrisbeomsuh on Apr 29, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Used to hate the Spurs, but not anymore
I wish it was for some of the high-minded reasons outlined above. But it is mostly because they are no longer much of a threat to the Lakers.
Anything can happen but the Lakers have passed them by. A healthy Laker squad will blow the doors off a healthy Spurs squad in a series for the rest of the Tim Duncan era.
The good thing is that they and their fans are pretty low-key which I do respect. Some teams’ fans talk a lot when they really haven’t won anything (ahem, cough, Suns fans, Blazer fans.)
Their best bet is to get Duncan & Ginobli back healthy. But other than those two & Parker they don’t really have any meaningful chips for trading. Plus they’re over the salary cap so all they have is the mid-level exception and the veteran’s minimum I think.
They might be able to land Rasheed if he’s ok with a cut in pay. They might even go after Lamar or Ariza if the Lakers don’t take care of business. Their front office is good but they need a miracle to be able to add enough to make them real contenders.
Way off topic, but I just had to share this.
Just found a picture of Trevor Ariza’s cousin. She is an actress on the Fox show Lie to Me. Can I get an amen!!!
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm72654080/nm0034962
"Don't I know you from somewhere"?. "Nah, that ain't me, I'm from Buffalo" - Axel Foley
No what I hate about the Spurs
There is no one on that team that I really find hateable & they were so good for so long. They didn’t have Paul Pierce getting a cramp and going down like he got shot. Or the big-time floppers like the Kings had a few years ago. Or Rasheed Wallace. Or Danny Ainge. They just went out, played boring ball, displayed great fundamentals and won.
floppers...
I dunno, I’ve always thought Ginobli was a flopper, though still an outstanding player. With that said, I can still say I hate the Spurs but I still respect their players and coach.
I don't hate the spurs
But I hate Bruce Bowen’s guts
4 wins down.... 12 more to go
by black mamba on Apr 30, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
You know...
I’ve never looked at the Spurs as a team that I “hated.” I always looked at them as the team that was really good, and were always a tough ass challenge. But I never really saw them as classless pricks or anything like that. I always looked at the Jazz (when they still had Malone) and the Kings as bitter rivals. Those games were always intense. When I think of the ‘02-’03 Lakers/Kings rivarly, those were two teams that genuinely HATED each other at the time, and you can really get the feeling of beef between them. Back when we were still in the Forum, I remember watching NBA on NBC every sunday, and whenever Utah would come to town, I would think… damn this is gonna be hard and I’m gonna get pissed off because I freakin hate Utah. I loathed Malone, Ostertag, Andersen, Foster, just to name a few. With the Spurs, I never got that same feeling.
by I Can't Feel My Face on Apr 30, 2009 12:23 AM PDT reply actions
No classless pricks..?
How about Popovich last year complaining about the Lakers trade for Gasol? At the time he said the NBA should change the rules so that opposing teams could veto a trade if they didn’t it seem fair.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
How are they being classless pricks?
I thought those complaints were pretty fair considering the conditions of the trade.
by chrisbeomsuh on Apr 30, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
My respect for Pop
My respect for the Spurs and for their attitudes under Popovich really was cemented last year after Game 4 when Fisher fouled Brent Barry and no foul was called, and then to a man none of the Spurs complained about it. It is true that on the previous play the refs had blown the call and mistakenly given the ball to the Spurs, so that last play should have never happened, but Pop and all the Spurs players were able to look at it from the other team’s point of view and say they wouldn’t want a playoff game to be decided that way, so they were fine with the no-call. Pure class, IMO.
Agreed
I wrote about it, at the time, saying that while the Sissy Playoffs were happening around the rest of the league, SA and LA were showing how it should be done.
16...15...14...13...12...
Strength & Honor
It’s a sad, sad day when people stop hating your team and start singing praises.
Great post, but hopefully next season everyone will be calling us “boring cheating floppers, and foreign to boot”.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Hmmm… Am I alone here…
…in that I still very much hate the Spurs? They are to be commended for their 4 titles in 9 years (even if that never included a back to back of any kind). But they also have had some help along the way.
In 2003, that NBA title was really Sacramento’s to lose until they lost Chris Weber for the playoffs. There is no way the Spurs would have won that year if Weber doesn’t get injured. Or how about 2007 when Phoenix finally seemed to have the edge on them until Stoudemire was suspended for game 6 of the western finals?
I’ll be the first to admit that Tim Duncan is possibly the best power forward to ever play and that what the Spurs have accomplished is respectable but I ‘d never put them in the same class as Bulls of the 90’s or the show time Lakers of the 80’s. Even the Celtics of the 80’s were more impressive to me. I’ll even go so far as to say that the Shaq and Kobe Lakers that started out this decade were more impressive (winning 3 in a row trumps an every other year pattern IMHO).
As it is the "team of the decade" title is still up for grabs. Right now the Spurs have 4 (if want to include the strike shortened title that actually took place in 1999) and the Lakers have 3. If the Lakers win this year then they’ll be tied at 4 a piece in this era and fans can debate from there. But IMHO it’s not even close…
Winning 3 championships in a row and then completely rebuilding a brand new team (save a couple of players) and winning again is a more impressive accomplishment then trucking along with essentially the same core players and winning on an every other year basis.
Personally I’m more excited about seeing some younger players stepping up and seeing new teams have their run at being the Lakers biggest rivalry; i.e. The Cavs, the Nuggets, the Hornets, the baby Bulls etc…
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
The Spurs 1999 championship team was totally different than the 2003 edition—only Duncan, Robinson, and Malik Rose were holdovers. By 2005, Duncan was the only the player left from the 99 championship team. The Spurs won a title, then rebuilt the team, then won some more. In fact, it would have to be considered more impressive than your retooled Lakers team, which has not, as of yet, won another title.
Plus, you say we’ve had some help, but we’ve had some breaks go against us as well. Duncan hurt his knee before the 2000 playoffs, denying him the chance to defend his title. Manu’s and-1 foul on Dirk in 2006. Derek Fisher’s 0.4 shot. Both Manu’s ankle injury and Derek Fisher’s landing on Brent Barry in the playoffs last year.
If all breaks go against them, maybe they only have 1 or 2 titles, but if they’d gotten some breaks, maybe they have 5 or 6. Everybody needs breaks along the way—people remember Jordan’s last shot in 1998, but even His Airness needed John Stockton’s shot to rim out (after Jordan’s J) at the end to preserve the victory.
Even your Lakers needed Portland to miss 75 consecutive shots in the 4th quarter of the 2000 WCF (after the aforementioned defending champs Spurs had lost TD to a knee injury, thus removing another obstacle), and for the ball to ricochet to Robert Horry in 2002. The 2001 team didn’t need any help along the way; they were just too good.
By the way, the Spurs would have suffocated the 2003 Sacramento team, just as they always did to offensive-oriented pretty boy teams.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Very well said, tomasito.
The fact is, every championship team gets its breaks. As mentioned, Duncan’s injury in 2000 opened up the way for the Lakers every bit as much as Webber’s injury in 2003 opened up and opportunity for the Spurs. The fact that a team got a break or two does not in any way diminish their accomplishment in winning a championship, because every championship team got its breaks.
Regarding Phoenix in 2006, you’re wrong about that. San Antonio didn’t win that series because of Amare and Diaw’s suspensions. In the very next game, which was in Phoenix, the Suns had a large lead in the second half, despite the suspensions. But they couldn’t hold on. Then, when Amare and Boris came back in the next game, they lost, and it wasn’t even close. If Stoudamire and Diaw really were the deciding factors, then it should have been made obvious with a win in their return.
Plus, that suspension was the right call. It followed a precedent set in several previous incidents over the previous few years, ever since the Indiana brawl incident. Remember Denver? Phoenix had no excuse. I know it’s a heated series and they’re very passionate, but you have to keep your head. You ever watch a football game, and a defensive player delivers a really late hit on the QB, and costs his team a really big play? Or a wide receiver makes a huge catch, only to shove the defender, kick him while he’s down, or something of the sort? What do the announcers say in those situations? They don’t give them excuses for being in the heat of the moment. They say, “He really hurt his team right there, he needs to keep his head on straight and think first.” The same was true for Phoenix.
Case in point: Remember when Raja Bell clotheslined Kobe, and threw him to the ground by his throat? What did Kobe do? He just collected himself, stood up, brushed the dusted off his shoulders, smiled and shook his head. And then he responded on the court, with his game. Did his teammates jump up and storm off the bench into a big fracas? Nope. Pissed as they were, they kept their cool, made sure their player was okay, and any anger they had was played out on the basketball court, not with physical confrontations. And that clothesline was way worse than the Horry bump.
At the end of the day, you can try and explain away the Spurs championships, but the truth is they’re no less impressive than any of the championships won by any other team.
16...15...14...13...12...
Strength & Honor
I’m not trying to say that the Spurs haven’t been a good team…
They have been a very good team that has won 4 championships. And the points you’ve made about every team getting its fair share of breaks is well made. I just don’t think what they have accomplished is on par with a 3-peat (or double 3-peats in the case of Jordan’s Bulls). They have never even gone back to back. This is not to say that winning multiple championships in 9 years time is not very impressive; it is. But I am of the opinion that winning back to back titles takes an extra special type of team.
As far as team’s hitting lucky shots on their way to a title, that sort of thing happens all the time. What has always bothered me about some of the Spurs title runs is the fortunate lack of competition. The suspensions of Stoudamire and Diaw in 2007 were completely justified and I have no complaints about that. But just the same it kept the two of them out of the final home game for Phoenix in that series. I even wonder what may have happened in game 1 of that series if Nash wasn’t bleeding profusely from his nose down the stretch.
There is a big difference between the Lakers in 2000 and the Spurs in ’03. The Lakers in 2000 were a 67 win team that would have still beaten the Spurs with or without Duncan. In 2003, Sacramento was the number one seed in the NBA playoffs that had just lost its best player.
Honestly, we can debate forever who might have won had things transpired differently in these two seasons but that will always remain conjecture.
Take a look at the records of the last 3 Spur championship teams:
2003: 60-22
2005: 59-23
2007: 58-24
Only one of them ever made it to 60 wins. This doesn’t mean they weren’t very good teams; I just wouldn’t call them dominant. The bottom line is that the Spurs have won 4 championships in the Duncan era (and if there has ever been a player that has been way underappreciated for his greatest it’s him. I still maintain the best power forward ever).
But I just don’t think they belong in discussion with say Jordan’s Bulls in the 90’s. Who for example in ’96 won a title with a team that won 72 regular season games and followed that up the following year a 69 win team that won another title. And as far as that Bull’s team lucking out on Stockton’s last second miss in game 6… even if that had gone in the Bulls just would have beaten them in game 7 IMHO.
The media has already crowned the Spurs as "the team of the decade" in a lot of cases and I think it has been a bit premature to do that. At least wait and see how this year’s playoffs unfold.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
Team of the decade isn’t just counting trophies I think. To me it just signifies consistent excellence and hard work on my levels even with changing role players, rules, economy, new star players, challenges and whatever other parameters you can think of etc.
Too many things can go wrong and we prevailed with lucky breaks and good decision making mostly.
One thing failed to mention about “Team of the decade” is that all the years the Spurs didn’t win it they were still in the discussion every year with exception to 2000 and that was only because Duncan was injured. The Lakers were not at all contenders in 2005-2007….they couldn’t even get past the Suns. The Spurs have maintaned excellence every year-even the years they don’t win it all sans this year.
...formerly known as speedostuffer
Never gets old
Seeing the Spurs get knocked out of the playoffs always brings a smile to my face.
GO BRONCOS IN 2009 AND BEYOND!!
Lakers beat Utah 4-1.......waiting for next opponent.

by 


























